Scaling laws in modern deep learning describe how held-out loss improves as model capacity, training data, and compute increase, often following power-law trends. We investigate whether analogous scaling regularities arise in actuarial ratemaking, where data are tabular, heterogeneous, and noisy, and where classical models such as GLMs remain strong baselines. Using a real-world motor insurance portfolio, we train models from different families across increasing fractions of the training data and multiple random seeds, evaluating out-of-sample Poisson deviance, a likelihood-based loss for Poisson count predictions in which lower values indicate better held-out fit. We find that all model families improve with additional data, but scaling exponents differ substantially: TabM exhibits markedly stronger data scaling than purely supervised tabular Transformers and standard MLP baselines. Transformer variants show weak parameter scaling unless augmented with additional inductive biases (TabM-style adaptation or self-supervision). These results provide quantitative guidance on model selection by data regime and suggest that effective scaling on actuarial tabular tasks depends on architecture and loss function objective design, with simple increases in Transformer size providing limited gains.
Model selection becomes particularly challenging under strong predictor dependence and model-class uncertainty, especially when there are exponentially many models. We propose a Descriptive-Complexity Information Criterion (DCIC) that regularizes large candidate model collections through Kraft-admissible code lengths. Under sub-Weibull noise, we establish selection consistency through approximation-error separation without relying on RIP-type conditions, together with nonasymptotic oracle risk bounds that remain valid under model misspecification. The same coding principle places heterogeneous classes on a common complexity scale at a small additional class-identification cost. This extension yields class--model recovery under suitable identifiability conditions and risk adaptation across classes. We further develop a complexity-guided search path that makes the computation--statistics trade-off explicit. Large penalties yield polynomial-size retained search regions with high probability, whereas smaller penalties sharpen the oracle risk benchmark. Numerical experiments illustrate stable support recovery and favorable estimation performance under strong dependence and model-class uncertainty.
Grégoire Sergeant-Perthuis, Elias Tsigaridas, Jules Tsukaharacs.LG cs.SC math.AG stat.ML
Classical information criteria such as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) rely on regularity assumptions that break down for singular models, leading to incorrect model selection in settings such as deep learning. The Widely Applicable Bayesian Information Criterion (WBIC) relies on local learning coefficients $λ$, which in the analytic case coincides with local Real Log Canonical Thresholds (RLCT) of the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the model, to capture correct marginal likelihood asymptotics. Exact computation of the learning coefficients has been limited to special cases, and only sampling-based estimation methods are generally applicable. We present the first deterministic algorithm that computes local RLCTs exactly for any two-dimensional model whose Kullback-Leibler distance is contact equivalent to a polynomial, derive a bound on its complexity, and demonstrate its effectiveness for a broad class of models, with applications including polynomial neural networks. Beyond providing ground truth to calibrate sampling-based estimators, exact computation reveals algebraic structure in learning coefficients that sampling cannot and out-speeds it in the shallow regime.
Andrej Tschalzev, Stefan Lüdtke, Heiner Stuckenschmidt +1cs.LG
Tabular machine learning benchmarks typically summarize performance by averaging scores, ranks, or pairwise wins across datasets. Such aggregates are useful for selecting robust default models, but they can obscure a different question: which models are necessary to attain peak performance on particular datasets? We argue that benchmark evaluation should also consider the data-centric peak performance frontier, defined by the best statistically supported performance achieved on each dataset. From this perspective, a model may be irreplaceable, sufficient, redundant, or fallible depending on where it lies on the frontier relative to other models. Applying this framework to the TabArena benchmark, we find that common aggregation metrics are highly correlated and largely measure consistency and avoiding failures, while being much less aligned with dataset-level irreplaceability. Consequently, models performing decently across datasets without ever being the best choice are rewarded while models with unique dataset-specific strengths appear mediocre under aggregation. Hence, benchmark progress should be measured not only by improvements on aggregation metrics but also by whether new models expand the set of attainable peak performances across datasets.
Whether input-dependent ("dynamic") combination of a regression model pool beats the best static blend depends on the shift and is rarely known before deployment. Can a small labeled target-domain probe tell us when reallocating trust across regions of the input space will pay off? We answer this with $\widehat{D}_{\mathrm{CF5}}$, which estimates from the probe the cross-fitted gain of the regionwise convex combination over the best static convex blend: the realizable value of deciding, region by region, whom to trust. Across a frozen suite of 12 dataset-shift pairs (spatial, temporal, domain, feature-cluster), $\widehat{D}_{\mathrm{CF5}}$ predicts realized regionwise test gains with dataset-level Spearman $+0.98$ (95% CI $[+0.83, +1.00]$; $p=5\times10^{-5}$), including two cases overturning preregistered expectations. The relationship holds in a 16-pair sensitivity analysis (Spearman $+0.83$), whereas alternative probe diagnostics reach at most $+0.66$. This contrast isolates regional trust reallocation: correlation is $+0.98$ for regionwise-convex gain, but $+0.01$ for smooth covariate-dependent stacking after affine correction. A controlled generator shows dynamic gains arise from the interaction of shift heterogeneity and local competence, increase with shift severity, and become realizable between 128 and 256 probe labels in the tested grid. The Probe-Validated Ensemble Selector chooses among a static affine stacker and dynamic realizers, deploying a candidate only when a held-out lower confidence bound clears the static-convex floor. In a preregistered prospective batch, it matched or improved the floor in all 12 runs; two deployments reduced test risk by 11% and 16%, while the gate rejected a candidate whose un-gated deployment incurred $>30\times$ the static loss. We release OpenRegShift, a reproducible evaluation harness for regression ensembles under distribution shift.
Whether an additional general dimension is necessary beyond correlated first-order factors is a property of the population covariance matrix, not of any estimator or design. This research establishes when that property can be decided. Where the general and group loadings are proportional within every cluster the bifactor structure is covariance-equivalent to correlated factors, so no sample size separates them (Proposition 1); where that proportionality fails in every cluster, three items per cluster and some mild regularities leave no $K$-factor model with diagonal uniquenesses able to reproduce the covariance matrix (Theorem 1); and between them lies a mixed boundary, located numerically here and turning on cluster resistance. Distinguishability is therefore graded, measured by the population distance to the $K$-factor class. Because that question is conditional on a first-order structure which is itself uncertain, a two-step procedure is developed within partially exploratory factor analysis, delivering a structure only when it reproduces across adjacent counts and treating non-delivery as legitimate. Simulation shows that a unanimous count can accompany a structure that fails to reproduce, and that absorbed local dependence can imitate a general factor, the error growing with sample size while stability indicators stay clean. Four empirical datasets illustrate the possible outcomes.
Model selection for imbalanced binary classification often uses the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), but thresholding makes validation rankings threshold-dependent. SoftMCC is a post-training MCC validation framework on established probability-valued confusion counts, coupling an MCC-specific calibrated identity with a tie-aware, shared-pool selection protocol. Its core score is a covariance-normalized probability-label association, reduces exactly to MCC for hard predictions, and is Pearson-bounded. Under perfect population calibration it equals the Brier skill score with identical candidate ordering; outside that regime the gap does not identify calibration error. Across 18 settings with 12 duplicate-safe grouped repeats, SoftMCC attains the best stability mean rank (2.31) and highest mean tie-corrected Kendall's W (0.659), with a significant Friedman test (p=0.007); Nemenyi analysis separates it from AUPRC and MCC@0.5, while 14-source-family sensitivity retains only the latter. Selected-model utility shows no advantage. Three of six prespecified comparisons have negative mean test-MCC differences, only F1@best survives Holm correction (p=0.014), and the dataset-level test is not significant (p=0.117). Label permutation lowers mean W to 0.092; temperature scaling shifts SoftMCC rankings (mean Spearman 0.851) whereas rank-based and threshold-optimized metrics remain invariant. SoftMCC is a calibration-sensitive MCC-family selector with bounded stability and utility evidence.
The principle of Occam's razor, which instructs us to prefer simplicity in inductive inference, has attracted much scrutiny both in the philosophy of science and in machine learning. In either field, however, a justification for the principle has been elusive. In this paper, building on an earlier "core argument," I spell out a justification from statistical learning theory for the procedure of regularization: for trading off fit for simplicity. The means-ends argument is that in order to profit from theoretical reliability and "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" guarantees, one must implement a certain preference for simplicity over fit. This is a genuine methodological justification, which neither collapses to a purely pragmatic principle that we prefer simplicity for its own sake, nor to an ontological assumption that the truth is simple.
Moisés Santos, Peter van der Putten, Bernhard Pfahringer +1cs.LG cs.AI
We propose Rashomon Alignment (RA), a new measure to assess functional similarity between two models. Existing functional similarity measures are distributional, quantifying differences between outputs of models applied to real-world data. However, these measures can be regarded as ecologically valid only for regions in the input space represented by the available data. We introduce a geometrical perspective on functional model similarity, which estimates it across the entire data space, offering a comprehensive view of decision boundary alignment independent of any specific data distribution. We also propose geometric Rashomon Alignment as a measure of geometrical similarity, which is computed using data uniformly sampled from the instance space. We perform an experimental analysis on more than 90 datasets, examining critical cases where model alignment diverges from predictive accuracy. Our results show that geometrical and distributional alignment provide different and complementary perspectives on the similarity between models and algorithms. RA can be used for multiple purposes, including model selection, ensemble construction, and enhanced interpretability of machine learning models and algorithms.
Idris Karel Seunda Ekwe, Patrick Tenga Shako, Ernest Parfait Fokouécs.LG
Neural network compression and interpretability remain open challenges in modern deep learn- ing, where billion-parameter architectures deliver impressive accuracy at the cost of trans- parency, computational efficiency, and reliable uncertainty quantification. This paper introduces Neural Atom Prevalence (NAP), a principled Bayesian framework for structured node-level model selection in feedforward neural networks. NAP introduces the neural atom (activation unit) and functions as a hybrid method operating through a four-phase pipeline: Bayesian Lottery Ticket (BLT) identification via Iterative Magnitude Pruning (IMP), soft variational training of the Spike and Slab Independent Gaussian (SS-IG) model, Poisson-Binomial (PB) optimal layer-size selection, and Bayesian fine-tuning to produce a sparse, stable, interpretable, and accurate model. Extensive empirical validation across simulated nonlinear regression, two UCI benchmark datasets (Concrete, YearPredictionMSD), and the MNIST image classification task demonstrates that NAP achieves state-of-the-art structural sparsity, reducing active nodes to as few as 8% of the original dense architecture on MNIST, while well-calibrated probabilisti- cally: the aleatoric-epistemic uncertainty decomposition reveals that model ignorance accounts for only 3 to 4% of total predictive variance across all experiments, and regression reliability diagrams confirm a near-nominal predictive interval coverage (93.4% observed against a 95% target). These results establish NAP as a reliable, theoretically grounded, and computation- ally tractable solution to the simultaneous pursuit of sparsity, accuracy, interpretability, and uncertainty quantification in Bayesian neural networks.
The Universal Approximation Theorem states that a neural network with a single hidden layer is sufficient to approximate any continuous univariate function on a compact domain to arbitrary error. However, the uniqueness of such neural network representations is not guaranteed, raising questions about practical identifiability. In this work, we address this concern by analyzing functional equivalence and geometric diversity of neural network approximations to a few elementary mathematical functions. The analysis includes an extensive study of single-layer neural networks and multilayer perceptrons under noisy and noise-free conditions. Beyond just network capacity, we study the geometric properties through the lens of sloppiness, characterized by the eigen spectrum of the Hessian of the cost function and the effective rank to quantify the dimensionality of parameter space. The study reveals large equivalence classes of functionally indistinguishable yet geometrically diverse networks that consistently exhibit low effective rank and structural redundancy. Finally, a model select criterion is proposed for identifying optimal models based on parsimony, ease of estimation, and inference efficiency.
In partially exploratory factor analysis (PEFA), the loading structure and factor numbers are weakly specified. The regularized variational approximation for partially confirmatory factor analysis (PCFA VA) recovers this structure via Bayesian variable selection, using spike and slab priors to assign inclusion probabilities to unspecified loadings. This research introduces a post selection assessment framework for this approach. We convert converged solutions into covariance models using either hard selection (thresholding probabilities into a sparse pattern) or soft selection (retaining them as weights for effective parameter counts). We derive the resulting degrees of freedom, absolute fit diagnostics (RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI), and relative criteria (AIC, BIC, ELBO). To determine factor numbers, we propose a scale free gain rule with a sustained drop guard. Simulations show absolute indices successfully track loading recovery and flag under factoring. While raw criteria over factor, our gain rule accurately recovers true dimensionality, with the ELBO variant proving most robust. Finally, a 100 item PID 5 example demonstrates that our model fits better than a confirmatory 25 facet model and concordantly recovers major structures across disjoint specifications.
Pretrained generative foundation models cast forecasting as conditional generation from a learned predictive distribution and forecast unseen series zero-shot. We establish three results that turn their reported success into an actionable, mechanistic understanding. First (a positive benchmark result): on a power-controlled study of 1728 rolling-origin forecasts over 36 series from 19 datasets spanning the full range of STL trend strength (F_T in [0.17, 1.00]), a zero-shot Chronos model significantly outperforms four strong classical baselines -- drift, seasonal-naive, Theta, and additive Holt-Winters/ETS -- with the best mean MASE (1.187 vs. Theta 1.337, ETS 1.656; Friedman chi^2 = 46.08, p = 8.75e-09; Holm-corrected Wilcoxon p <= 0.015 against every baseline; a Nemenyi critical difference separating it from the classical pack). Second (a novel, quantified mechanism): a controlled synthetic experiment with a known trend-generating process shows why -- and reveals that the win does not come from better trend extrapolation. When the true trend is linear, damped, or exponential, additive ETS tracks the slope (slope-tracking ratio 1.02, 1.34, 0.98) whereas Chronos systematically under-extrapolates, behaving as a trend-shrinkage estimator (ratio 0.80, 0.49, 0.36). Third (an actionable selection rule): because the advantage is a shrinkage effect, it is predictable from trend strength alone -- the generative model wins 78% of low-trend series but only 44% of high-trend ones, and its edge over ETS is significant on the low-trend stratum (0.982 vs. 1.671, p = 0.002) yet a tie on the high-trend stratum (p = 0.18). Trend strength, computable before forecasting from the training context alone, is therefore a practical a-priori indicator of when to deploy a foundation model. We additionally document a calibration shortfall (80% intervals cover 0.77).
Giorgio Corani, Stefano Damato, Dario Azzimonti +1stat.ML cs.LG
We consider the problem of model selection between probabilistic models on data sets of time series. Chosen a proper scoring rule, we denote by the term \textit{score} the average value of the scoring rule on the test of an individual time series. For model selection, we need aggregating the values of the scores across multiple time series. Three summary statistics are commonly used for model selection: mean score, median score, and mean rank. Results in previous papers show that these statistics can yield conflicting decisions; we show how the conflicting conclusions are due to the skewness of the distribution of scores. We also show that as the test set of each time series of the data set increases, the different model selection criteria progressively converge to the same conclusion. However, for short tests sets, only the mean score identifies the true model as the best. We illustrate these phenomena with an analysis on intermittent time series, including the data set of the M5 competition, where we underline the importance of having a large test set. In such experiments, we further notice that model selection based on mean ranks remains unchanged using different scaling factors.
A modern model release reports scores on 40+ benchmarks and the same evaluations were run many more times before it: to track training progress, compare design choices, and select the checkpoint for the release. But do we need to run every eval? We compile a public score matrix of 84 frontier models on 133 benchmarks (2,604 cells, 23.3% filled) and find it is approximately rank-2: a model's scores across all benchmarks are largely determined by just two numbers. We confirm this in two ways: (i) scores hidden from the matrix are best recovered using two factors, and (ii) two factors already explain over 90% of the variation among models on the benchmarks they share. Building on this, we design BenchPress: a logit-space rank-2 matrix completion method that recovers held-out scores to within 4.6 points. Using BenchPress, we find a subset of five benchmarks {GPQA-D, HLE, Codeforces, MMLU-Pro, ARC-AGI-1} that can recover the rest of a model's public scorecard to within 3.93 points. For a tighter evaluation budget, a cheaper set {GPQA-D, MMLU-Pro, Aider Polyglot, MATH-500, AIME 2026} can predict a model's evals to within 4.55. Finally, we identify what affects prediction reliability and combine these factors with predictor disagreement to quantify when predictions can be trusted. We release the score matrix, the code for reproducing all of our experiments on Github.
Yong Yi Bay, Kathleen A. Yearickcs.LG cs.AI math.NA stat.ML
Hyperparameter tuning almost always means search: fit the model at every value on a grid, score each by cross-validation, and keep the winner. For spline regression that search is unnecessary. The optimal resolution can be solved for in closed form, to the accuracy an exhaustive search reaches, at a fraction of the compute. Three ingredients make this possible: classical approximation theory pins the squared bias to a known power of the resolution G, exactly the Kolmogorov n-width of the smoothness class; the basis dimension is an explicit polynomial in G; and leave-one-out error follows from a single fit via the PRESS identity. Balancing the two known curves gives the minimizer analytically. We extend this calculus to many coordinates by replacing ambient input dimension with interaction order, the number of active low-order components in an ANOVA decomposition, yielding a scaling law in which the optimal resolution and error are power functions of the effective density (sample size per active component), with input dimension absent from the exponent. The law becomes an algorithm. KORE (Kolmogorov-optimal Order-aware Resolution Estimation) fits two pilot resolutions, solves a leverage-calibrated 2x2 system for the bias and noise scales, and evaluates the closed-form plug-in resolution with a tiny leave-one-out certificate: about a dozen fits instead of a full grid sweep, with a consistency guarantee as the sample grows. Across additive and sparse pairwise targets up to 80 input dimensions, KORE matches exhaustive 3-fold cross-validation and the full classical ladder (GCV, Mallows' Cp, AIC, BIC) while fitting roughly 8x fewer models; on 36 real tabular datasets it ranks first among 21 methods in accuracy per unit of compute, ahead of tuned boosters and kernel machines. When complexity lives in low interaction order, solving for the resolution beats searching for it.
Traditional evaluation of machine learning (ML) models typically focuses on achieving the maximum possible accuracy irrespective of the computational cost. In this article, we propose a paradigm shift towards evaluating performance based on computational effort-explicitly defined here as the total number of gradient descent steps required to reach an acceptable level of accuracy with high probability. Building upon the concept of computational effort originally introduced by Koza for Genetic Programming, we extend this metric to any ML model trained via gradient descent. Furthermore, we demonstrate that minimising this effort acts as a novel form of Automatic Machine Learning (AutoML). By evaluating it across 11 diverse ML models and five standard classification datasets, we uncover significant insights into the dynamics of gradient-based learning. Our findings reveal that optimal hyper-parameters consistently favour unusually large learning rates. Crucially, we demonstrate that the rapid, aggressive landscape traversal enabled by these large rates not only promotes generalisation-as seen in phenomena like superconvergence-but also statistically minimises the expected computational effort for training. Furthermore, we identify distinct phase transitions in the optimal search strategy: while a single training run suffices for lower accuracy targets, reaching a model's performance limit requires a dramatic shift towards conducting numerous independent, short restarts. Finally, we illustrate how this effort-based paradigm provides a robust framework for model selection, allowing practitioners to choose optimal algorithms based on the difficulty of a problem as perceived by different models for a given target accuracy, or to maximise the achievable accuracy for a fixed budget of gradient descent steps.
Rosario Barone, Luciana Dalla Valle, Fabrizio Leisen +1stat.ME stat.ML
The growing popularity of vine copulas in multivariate statistical analysis is largely driven by their ability to capture complex dependence structures. However, this flexibility comes at a cost, as the number of possible vine models grows rapidly and becomes intractable even in moderately low-dimensional settings. These limitations affect the practical applicability of current Bayesian inference and model selection approaches, effectively restricting it to problems of relatively small-dimension due to their high computational cost. This paper addresses the still open challenge of efficient model selection and estimation in Bayesian vine methodology. We propose a novel framework for Bayesian vine copula model selection that combines loss-based model priors with the shotgun stochastic search strategy. The strength of the proposed approach is twofold: it promotes sparsity and enables fast and effective structure selection. Furthermore, our comprehensive framework jointly identifies the vine structure, selects the copula families, and estimates the model parameters. The power of the proposed approach is demonstrated via simulation studies and an application to a real dataset of EFT portfolio asset returns.
Yuta Hayashida, Shonosuke Sugasawastat.ML cs.LG math.ST
This paper studies the information gap between mixture detection and label recovery in binomial logistic mixtures. Standard likelihood-based criteria such as the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) can detect the presence of two components, but this does not guarantee that the corresponding labels are recoverable. We show that this gap is intrinsic to binomial logistic mixtures with a fixed number of trials: observed-data evidence for mixture structure and per-observation information for label recovery have different local orders in the component separation, and only the former accumulates with the sample size. As a result, there exists a detectable-but-unrecoverable regime in which BIC selects two components while the posterior labels remain essentially uninformative. To address this issue, we propose two feasibility-aware inference procedures: a recoverability-aware BIC with a posterior-entropy penalty and an entropy-regularized estimator that mitigates the tendency of the maximum likelihood estimator to produce overly separated components and overly concentrated posterior responsibilities. Numerical experiments confirm the predicted gap and demonstrate that the proposed methods avoid misleading component selections and improve the calibration of posterior label probabilities.
Undirected graphical models provide a fundamental framework for representing conditional independence structures among high-dimensional random variables. While undirected graphical model selection has become a central problem in high-dimensional statistics, most existing methods are restricted to parametric settings. In this paper, we develop a nonparametric approach to undirected graphical model selection based on diffusion models. Recent work has shown that diffusion models can adapt to the unknown graph structure of the underlying distribution, yet utilizing these models for explicit graph estimation remains unexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce a novel diffusion-based method for nonparametric undirected graphical model selection. We establish the model selection consistency of the proposed method and demonstrate its empirical performance through extensive simulations and two real data analyses.
Yikai Zhang, Gaoxiang Jia, Jie Ding +1cs.LG stat.ML
TorchKM is an open-source library for kernel machines, including support vector machines, kernel logistic regression, and kernel quantile regression, with GPU acceleration. The library features a scikit-learn-style API and is designed to exploit GPU-friendly linear algebra, accelerating the full training and model-selection pipeline through intelligent reuse of matrix operations. Benchmarks show competitive predictive performance with substantial speedups over standard baselines. The efficiency and programmable design also make TorchKM a kernel-learning component for AI-driven workflows. Code and documentation are available at https://github.com/YikaiZhang95/torchkm, and the package can be easily installed via PyPI.
Symbolic regression (SR) is a class of methods that systematically explore the space of mathematical functions to discover models that accurately capture the underlying relationships in a dataset. Despite recent advances in the field, a lack of support for uncertainty quantification (UQ) limits its adoption in real-world decision processes. In regression analysis, UQ provides important information about the model reliability, which can both help to avoid overfitting by accounting for uncertainty in the data, and provide insights for decision-making. This survey is the first to clearly address this issue, with the objective of introducing essential UQ concepts and reviewing the current literature on UQ in SR, which can be broadly organized into three research directions: frequentist, Bayesian, and model selection. Despite its importance, UQ in SR is still underexplored, which motivates further research into reliable UQ methods for SR.
Deep unsupervised domain adaptation (Deep UDA) methods successfully leverage rich labeled data in a source domain to boost the performance on related but unlabeled data in a target domain. However, algorithm comparison is cumbersome in Deep UDA due to the absence of accurate and standardized model selection method, posing an obstacle to further advances in the field. Existing model selection methods for Deep UDA are either highly biased, restricted, unstable, or even controversial (requiring labeled target data). To this end, we propose \textit{Deep Embedded Validation} (\textbf{DEV}), which embeds adapted feature representation into the validation procedure to obtain unbiased estimation of the target risk with bounded variance. The variance is further reduced by the technique of control variate. The efficacy of the method has been justified both theoretically and empirically.
Tyler Crosse, Alan Nadelsticher Ruvalcaba, Dustin Khang LeDuc +3cs.LG
Different predictors often excel on different inputs, so picking the best one per instance promises higher accuracy than committing to a single model. In practice, selectors trained from logged data routinely fail to beat the strongest single predictor. Three causes typically go unseparated before more tuning is applied: a mismatched learner, a state that does not predict which model wins, or buffer-to-deployment label shift. A three-stage diagnostic rules them out on a shared buffer. Stage~1 estimates a local ceiling on oracle recovery from $k$-NN label consistency. Stage~2 asks whether paired BC and offline-RL learners (BC, DQN, and CQL across penalty weights) reach that ceiling. Stage~3 ablates the selector state to test whether richer features would raise it. The combined verdict points to the most promising next step: tuning the learner, redesigning the state, or collecting new data. We apply it to selecting among five dropout-prediction models on edX clickstream data. Across 16 windows, the oracle beats the strongest single base model by 9.7 accuracy points on average, yet BC, DQN, and CQL land in the same test-accuracy band below it (robust to a tenfold buffer sweep and $N{=}2{,}000$ held-out examples). The bottleneck is local representational ambiguity: CQL closes the imitation gap without a deployment gain (not conservatism), regret clusters tightly across learners (not tie-breaking), and the three learners converge on test accuracy (not shift). The next iteration should change the state or collect new data, not tune the offline learner further.
Gradient boosted decision trees require a stopping rule to avoid overfitting. The standard rule monitors a validation loss and stops if the loss fails to improve for a fixed patience period. However, the patience parameter has no interpretable scale and validation losses can be noisy or implicitly defined by a user-specified gradient. We propose ScoreStop, a gradient-based early-stopping rule that casts the stopping decision at each iteration as a test of the null hypothesis that the current predictor is the population risk minimizer. We use a functional score test, computed on validation data, with a statistic that is scale-invariant in the update direction, with a known asymptotic distribution under the null. Because our test uses gradients rather than loss values, the same construction applies to implicit losses such as LambdaRank, and data-dependent losses such as Cox regression via influence functions. In synthetic experiments and real-data benchmarks, we show that ScoreStop is competitive with loss-based methods.
Gabriel Kronberger, Fabricio Olivetti de Franca, Deaglan J. Bartlett +2cs.NE stat.ML
Symbolic regression with genetic programming (GPSR) may suffer from overfitting and structural bloat, especially when noise is present. In this paper we evaluate description length (DL) and fractional Bayes factor (FBF) criteria as principled, data-efficient alternatives to heuristics for selecting compact expressions that generalise well. We implement DL using a Fisher-information-based parameter encoding and compare it to AIC and BIC across multiple datasets, including noisy synthetic benchmarks and real-world regression problems. We study three search/selection strategies: (i) multi-objective search for accuracy and program length followed by DL/FBF selection; (ii) multi-objective search using DL directly as an objective; and (iii) single-objective optimisation with DL/FBF as the fitness. Across datasets we find that DL/FBF post-selection improves test performance compared to AIC/BIC baseline and that BIC in combination with the same function complexity penalty from DL/FBF produces similar results. In contrast, using DL/FBF directly as a fitness function in single-objective GPSR frequently induces premature convergence to overly simple models. We conclude with practical guidance for using DL/FBF as robust model-selection tools in genetic programming workflows.
Yinan Cheng, Chi-Hua Wang, Vamsi K. Potluru +2cs.LG cs.AI
Devising procedures for downstream task-oriented generative model selections is an unresolved problem of practical importance. Existing studies focused on the utility of a single family of generative models. They provided limited insights on how synthetic data practitioners select the best family generative models for synthetic training tasks given a specific combination of machine learning model class and performance metric. In this paper, we approach the downstream task-oriented generative model selections problem in the case of training fraud detection models and investigate the best practice given different combinations of model interpretability and model performance constraints. Our investigation supports that, while both Neural Network(NN)-based and Bayesian Network(BN)-based generative models are both good to complete synthetic training task under loose model interpretability constrain, the BN-based generative models is better than NN-based when synthetic training fraud detection model under strict model interpretability constrain. Our results provides practical guidance for machine learning practitioner who is interested in replacing their training dataset from real to synthetic, and shed lights on more general downstream task-oriented generative model selection problems.